On
11 September 2001, I sat with a Palestinian family in the living room
of their home in Aqaba, Jordan and watched subdued as planes struck US
landmarks. It wasn’t long before the Saudi rebel Osama bin Laden was
fingered as the culprit. That the corporate media had so quickly named
a responsible party was suspicious. My suspicion was further aroused
when, days later, I spoke with a friend who trained pilots for Royal
Jordanian Airlines. The captain claimed that flight 93 had not
crashed; it had been shot down. To adduce his point he pointed out how
there were no large chunks of fuselage among the wreckage and that the
wreckage was scattered over too wide an area. Assuming his facts were
true, then the media portrayal of the 9-11 Gestalt was immediately
questionable.

Reports quickly surfaced about
Israelis celebrating during the attack, that no Arabs were on the
planes, that onboard cell phones could not function under those
circumstances, that US air force interceptor planes had taken
inordinately long to scramble, that the WTC buildings’ owner had
massively insured the buildings for a terrorist attack, that only a
demolition could collapse the buildings in such a manner, that jet
fuel did not burn hot enough to melt steel, that the president sat
with school children apparently unfazed by the news of the attack, and
so on. True or not, it was no wonder that people became engaged in a
movement to determine what happened on 9-11.

How does one arrive at the “truth”?

Certainly not through close-mindedness.
Would one be likely to arrive at the “truth” if he is unwilling to
consider all the evidence? Open-minded skepticism -- the willingness
to consider many views skeptically -- seems a logical formula by which
to arrive at the truth. Open-minded skepticism includes critical
appraisal of facts, pertinent literature, and hypotheses in reaching
one’s own conclusions. Of course, hashing one’s conclusions over with
others helps to winnow out wrong conclusions and refine incongruencies.
Consequently, I have maintained an open-mindedness to information
emerging from 9-11 but with requisite skepticism. There was no way
that I could, with limited resources and at great distance, check on
the mass of information and evidence that had to be sifted through to
conclude anything definite. I could only conjecture about isolated
pieces of information.

That many people would devote themselves
to the endeavor of trying to get at the “truth” of 9-11 seems like
something laudable and not to be disparaged, despite whatever wild
theories some people might reach and proffer. Many contrarians,
however, deemed it sufficient to disqualify the self-described “truth
seekers” as “conspiracy theorists.” Even some people normally
considered progressives have ridiculed the truth seekers. What should
one think when a progressivist voice, derided as a conspiracy theorist
by his detractors [1], uses the same epithet to
describe others?

How often are commissions and their
reports about getting at the truth? How often are they about delay,
cover-up, spin, and obfuscation? [2] Why should the
plodding
9-11 Commission Report, despite the commissioners’ claim to
be “independent, impartial, through and nonpartisan,” be any
different? In Britain, the Hutton Inquiry is widely regarded as a
whitewash of the purported assassination of bio-terrorism expert Dr.
David Kelly. [3] Why should the 9-11 Commission be
expected to issue a report that implicates the Bush administration? In
fact, the Commission’s “sweeping” mandate is not about assigning
individual blame.

Insanity

Was 9-11 a false flag operation?

“Did [the Bush administration] plan it
in any way or know about it?” asks Chomsky. “This seems to me
extremely unlikely. For one, they would have had to be insane to try
anything like that.” [4]

Adolf Hitler’s Big Lie is premised on a
lie so colossal that the truthfulness of it would be unchallenged. If,
indeed, the official version of 9-11 is a lie, then what could be a
bigger lie? Would this be insane?

Chomsky knows that regime insanity does
happen. He called Hitler’s WWII Holocaust “the most fantastic outburst
of collective insanity in human history.” [5]

Does not insanity prevail in the world?
How else should one describe a world in which the masses of people
slave away so that the idle few can siphon up the newly created
wealth, a world where the plutocrats in the superpower can overthrow
elections and governments in foreign states that do not meet their
approval, where ethnic cleansing and genocide are permitted or
encouraged elsewhere when it is in the “national interest” of the
superpower, and where the corporate media colludes with the crimes
against humanity? Does not realpolitik obfuscate insanity? Given all
this, why should the idle ruling class not be emboldened to commit
further acts of insanity?

Lies are nothing new to governments. The
invasion-occupation of Iraq was a government lie. What was the pretext
for this? 9-11. 9-11 allowed the Bush administration to push its
disinformation about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Was the slaughter of some 655,000 (and counting) Iraqi civilians and
the sacrifice of nearly 60,000 (and counting) US casualties not
insane?

The Haitian president Jean Bertrand
Aristide, kidnapped and forced into exile by a US-engineered coup,
said of the US:

You’re dealing with a country that was
willing and able, in front of the UN and in front of the world at
large, to fabricate claims about the existence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. They were willing to lie about issues of global
importance. It’s hardly surprising that they were able to find a few
people to say the things that needed to be said in Haiti, in a small
country of no great strategic significance. [6]

Maybe few Americans are aware of the
Haitian coup, but many Americans now know about the lie of Iraq
weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, not enough Americans care to halt
the war crimes of their government, and not enough citizens of other
countries care enough to pressure their government sufficiently to
stop support of, let alone take a stand against, US aggression.

Chomsky also knows of evidence that
points at Pearl Harbor not being a surprise attack -- that Franklin D.
Roosevelt knew it was coming and allowed it to happen.
[7] The American populace was consequently persuaded to reverse
its aversion to military participation in World War II. Was FDR insane
to let the attack on Pearl Harbor happen?

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
conceived Operation Northwoods, a plan for a secret terrorist attack
against the homeland to trick the American public into supporting a
war against Cuba. Were the Joint Chiefs of staff insane to contemplate
a self-inflicted attack?

Journalist John Pilger does not consider
the committing of insane acts by extreme regimes, such as in the US
and Israel, as implausible:

When you have extreme regimes, as modern
history has taught us, then some very awful things are likely to
happen. They’re prepared to take risks. They don’t care about human
life . . . or destroying human life on a scale that, that other
regimes . . . might draw back from. [8]

Ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern has no
doubts about the insanity of members of the US regime, describing
vice-president Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives as “crazy like a
fox.” [9]

Recently, Chomsky seems to have
reconsidered US regime insanity: “Then again, a predator becomes even
more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to
salvage something, the administration might risk even greater
disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable
catastrophe in Iraq.” [10]

Leaks

Insanity aside, Chomsky argues that a
planned attack against the homeland “would have leaked. You know, it
is a very poor system. Secrets are hard to keep.”

In 1954, in an operation code-named “Susanah,”
Israeli agents targeted British and US buildings in Egypt. The
operation, known as the Lavon Affair, was uncovered. For the public at
large, however, there were no substantial leaks for many years, and
most people still probably know little or nothing of the Lavon Affair.

On 8 June 1967, a US surveillance ship
in the Mediterranean Sea, the USS Liberty, was deliberately
attacked by Israeli planes, killing 34 crew members. The US regime
imposed strict censorship over the attack, and it remains largely
confined to the Memory Hole.

Secrets might not be perfectly kept, but
they can be kept sufficiently secret for a long enough period of time
-- long enough to manage public perception and allow those people
culpable to escape serious rebuke or punishment.

Yet Chomsky insists, “So something would
have leaked out, very likely. And if it had they would have all been
before a firing squad. It would have been the end of the Republican
Party forever.”

How many Americans know about the events
of the Lavon Affair, the attack on the USS Liberty, or Operation
Northwoods? Even if all Americans knew, one might ask how many would
care unless provoked to care?

As for the melodramatic reference to
firing squads, Chomsky knows better. “Elite” government characters and
their high-ranking minions are seldom harshly punished and certainly
not by firing squad. In the US, capital punishment is mainly for the
poor, predominantly non-White class.

Chomsky states, “You couldn’t predict
that the plane would actually hit the Trade Center. It could easily
have missed.”

Chomsky repeats, “But what you can be
almost certain of is that any hint of a plan would have leaked and
would’ve just destroyed [the Bush administration officials]. And to
take a chance on that would have been just meaningless.”

Chomsky’s assertion is at variance with
the commonly held dictum that the lust for power corrupts the human.
The examples of humans taking seemingly insane risks for greater power
and prestige are myriad. But how much of a chance would such conniving
characters be taking? In the documentary Manufacturing Consent:
Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992), Chomsky expounds on the
complicity of the corporate media (which would be the ultimate leaker):

And what the media are doing is ensuring
that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of
power are served, not the interests of suffering people and not the
needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized
the blood that’s dripping from their hands because of the way they’re
allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system.

Furthermore, Ed Herman and Chomsky
meticulously supported their Propaganda Model which illustrates how
information is controlled by the corporate media. The system, the
authors explained, allows dissident views to occasionally leak, but
confines such views at the margins. [12]

There already have been leaks.
Film-maker Aaron Russo claims his friend, Nicholas Rockefeller, of the
“elite”
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), let him in on an
upcoming “event”: “Eleven months before 9-11 happened there was going
to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade
Afghanistan to run pipelines through the Caspian Sea; we were going to
invade Iraq to take over the oil fields and establish a base in the
Middle East, and we’d go after Chavez in Venezuela.”
[13]

If true, this is outrageously prescient
stuff. Russo states 9-11 is a “phony,” “fake,” “fraud,” and the “war
on terror” is a “fraud,” “farce,” “hoax,” and “joke.”

Russo has no doubts who was behind 9-11:
“People know that 9-11 was an inside job. Look what they did here in
America, look at 9-11, look what they did. They killed thousands of
Americans -- people jumping out of windows from a hundred floors up.
They don’t care.”

Russo asks, “Why do you think 9-11
happened and nothing since then? Do you think our security is so great
here . . . ? Nine-11 was done by people in our own government, in our
own banking system to perpetuate the fear of the American people into
subordinating themselves to anything the government wants them to do .
. . that’s what it’s all about.”

Leaking requires extreme courage -- or
maybe insanity. Woe to those people who would try and expose the
insanity of government and its agencies. Journalist Gary Webb exposed
the scorching hot potato of CIA involvement in drug smuggling. For
this he was pilloried and run out of the corporate media. His life
ended in a tragic suicide. [14] Diplomat Joseph
Wilson went public with disinformation emanating from the Bush White
House prior to the invasion of Iraq. The corporate media hurled
invective at him [15] and his wife was outed as a
CIA operative. The leaks of Webb and Wilson caused hardly a ripple to
the power centers. The lesson: the leakers will suffer and leaks can
be plugged.

Despite this, there have been plenty of
leaks about 9-11 and the “war on terrorism”: US officials such as
former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, former counter-terrorism chief
Richard Clark, and former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill were all
scathingly attacked after coming forward. In Britain, intelligence
employee Katherine Gun, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, and BBC
executives Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies lost their jobs. Ministry of
Defense employee Dr. David Kelly wound up dead. Obviously, leaking
carries a high price. Even the exposure of plagiarized and “sexed-up”
dossiers and the condemnatory Downing Street Memos fizzled. None of
these leaks had major impact. Conclusively, it is not enough merely
for information to leak. The leaked information has to reach enough
people, and more importantly, that information needs to be credible
and meaningful to people. Leaked information that reaches too few
people or is viewed with utmost disbelief has little or no effect.

Most importantly, people need to care.
The “official” 9-11 story has a large share of doubters, and yet it
has still hardly made a dent in the political landscape or caused harm
to the Republican Party.

How is one to assess Russo’s
revelations? The usual method is to question what a person stands to
gain for speaking out. In Russo’s case, certainly not money and fame.
He was already well-to-do and well known. The filmmaker says he even
turned down membership in the CFR, having no interest in “enslaving
the people.” In fact, Russo has already paid a price in being
ostracized from Hollywood. He says he is motivated by a “sense of
conscience” and a “sense of justice.” This selflessness gives Russo
credibility.

Aaron Dykes, a videographer present at
the taping of the interview, vouched for Russo: “I can say that Aaron
Russo is a very open person; his body language and tone convey that of
a person being completely honest, as one watching the interview can
also witness. At the same time, it is one man’s word against another,
so I can’t say that it is hard evidence in a court of law, without
other supporting evidence. However, the Russo family has pictures with
Nick Rockefeller and their relationship is otherwise established.”

But Russo’s source, Nicholas
Rockefeller, appears to be a most dubious character.
[16] Despite this Rockefeller’s dubiousness, according to Russo,
he still predicted a 9-11-type “event.”

Evidence

Chomsky attacks the evidence produced as
“essentially worthless.” This is his opinion. I find myself in
agreement with Chomsky on his skepticism, if not the level of
skepticism, to the scientific evidence. But even challenging the
scientific evidence may exact a price for dissenting academics, as
Brigham Young University physicist Dr. Steven Jones has found out. He
was put on paid leave, a “rare” course of action for a professor with
“continuing status.” [17]

Conspiracy Theorists

Chomsky dismisses the truth seekers as
“elaborate conspiracy theorists” who are “completely wrong” and
“diverting people away from serious issues.” Who is to determine what
are serious issues? In a culture where whether Britney Spears wears
underwear dominates public discourse (according to Russo and
interviewer Alex Jones), determining what happened on 9-11 is hardly
inconsequential.

Who Cares?

But Chomsky makes a most extraordinary
statement: “Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who
cares? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance. . . . It’s just
taking energy away from serious issues for ones that don’t matter.”

This is Chomsky’s opinion. The families
of the 2,973 people killed and the 24 people missing on 9-11 probably
care. The warmongers in the government apparently thought that enough
people cared enough so that they could exploit 9-11. Obviously, the
“truth seekers” care.

Russo maintains: “Until you get to the
root cause of 9-11, which is supposedly the ‘war on terror,’ we’ll
never solve our problems. . . . Where did 9-11 come from? That’s the
root cause of everything.”

If, indeed, it is the root cause of
everything, then that seems like a pretty good reason for everyone to
care.

In the meantime, the warmongering US and
Zionist regimes are targeting the US public with a massive
disinformation barrage demonizing Iran. Former national security
advisor to US president Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is not
convinced of the sanity of the US regime. On 1 February, he warned the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

“A plausible scenario for a [US]
military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the
benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the
failure ... then, by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in
the United States blamed on Iran culminating in a quote-unquote
defensive US military action against Iran…” [18]

False flag operation? Insanity? Further
insouciance or unwitting credulity by the public might result in a
cataclysmic loss of life.

This is why it is wrong to assert that
the “truth seekers” are diverting energy away from serious issues. It
is not merely about the issue of 9-11 but also about the credibility
of the regime. The presence of 9-11 “truth seekers” shows the Bush
administration that there are a persistent number of people dedicated
to exposing the crimes of government, arguably acting as a potential
brake on the regime. Therefore, attaching pejorative labels to “truth
seekers” hardly serves the aims of progressives or humanity.